Untitled Document

WORLD NEWS
No. 228, May 28 - June 3, 2003

US seeks regime change for Iran
go to article

After Iraq, France faces sanctions
go to article

US looks away as new ally tortures Islamist
Uzbekistan president steps up repression of opponents
go to article

Israeli ‘acceptance’ of ‘roadmap’
has web of strings attached
go to article

BP pipeline will displace thousands,
says Amnesty
go to article

Specter of lawsuits haunts Berlusconi
go to article

WORLD BRIEFS
go to briefs

In Aceh, Indonesia takes cues
from Bush on Iraq

By Pranjal Tiwari

May 26— The day before East Timor celebrated the second anniversary of its independence from Indonesia, the Jakarta government launched an all-out attack on another independence movement, this time in Aceh, a northern Sumatran province rich in oil and natural gas. The 30-50,000 Indonesian troops, covered by warships and fighter jets, constitute the largest military operation since the invasion of East Timor in 1975. Their overarching mission has been clearly defined by General Endriartono Sutarto: “You must chase and wipe out GAM [the Free Aceh Movement]...you are trained to kill, so wipe them out.”

The attack on Aceh coincides not only with the independence day of East Timor, but other internal and international situations, whose influence is evident in the timing and details of the operation.

President Megawati Sukarnoputri’s government is currently facing an internal crisis, and severe pressure from political opposition and disaffected groups, particularly over the effects of its neoliberal economic policies. These extremely unpopular policies, which included the removal of various subsidies, led to instability and diminution in the market prices for such commodities as sugar, tobacco, and rice, and widespread suffering among farmers and ordinary Indonesians. Privatization was also a feature of government policy, a factor that led to extensive job-losses, particularly in the manufacturing sector. Just this year, in January, massive opposition to neoliberal policies forced the government to do a U-turn and partially restore subsidies for fuel, electricity, and phone tariffs.

More recently, on May 21, thousands across the country participated in demonstrations to mark the anniversary of former dictator Suharto’s downfall in 1998 . The demonstrations explicitly targeted the current government, demanding that Megawati resign, and that the political reform promised after Suharto’s reign be instituted. According to some reports, polls have recorded some 80% of people expressing general discontent with the government and political parties. Max Lane, writing in Australia’s Green Left Weekly, notes that the demonstrations “have involved the broadest political support of any wave of demonstrations since 1997-98.”

The Aceh attack, which early indications show has enjoyed a high level of popular support in Indonesia, could certainly give a nationalist boost to a government in crisis. Though the success of this move is yet to be seen, with the May 21 popular protests coming after the attack on Aceh began, the Megawati government may have attempted to find some refuge in the “fog of war.”

Internationally, one can clearly see the influence of the recent US invasion of Iraq, in having provided both legitimacy and even specific planning ideas for the Aceh attack.

In terms of legitimacy, cracking down on insurgencies, internal dissent, and political opposition by governments across the world had already become increasingly popular with the declaration of Bush’s “war on terror”.

As Dr. Andrew Tan, an expert on regional insurgencies at Singapore’s Institute for Defense and Strategic Studies, told the Christian Science Monitor recently: “This is the right time to go back to war. In the context of the war against terrorism, there are few, if any, diplomatic costs to seeking a military solution.”

For an all-out military assault rather than low-intensity “counter-insurgency” warfare, however, there could be no better provider of legitimacy than the US war on Iraq: an illegal act of aggression carried out despite massive international civil and political outcry. The fact that the US government was able to successfully initiate and conclude such a blatant display of unprovoked force against significantly weaker opposition, with few political or military consequences, seems to have been taken by governments in Asia and around the world as a carte blanche, a chance to finally settle their problems of insurgencies and independence movements.

The Philippine government of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, for example, has taken the opportunity to redouble its attacks against the insurgency in the southern region of Mindanao. Much has also been written about the Israeli government’s escalation of violence against the Palestinians during and after the war on Iraq.

Similarly, the Indonesian government seems to have taken the opportunity to annihilate the insurgency in Aceh. Recent media reports have certainly cited Indonesian generals’ references to the US war on Iraq as justification for the operation. Moreover, the Indonesian government’s offer at the last minute peace talks held in Tokyo prior to the attack was a non-starter, with a core condition being the rejection of independence as a demand -- clearly something the Free Aceh Movement would never accept. Dan Murphy of the Christian Science Monitor compared the offer to “Israel demanding the Palestinian Liberation Organization renounce designs on statehood as a precondition for peace talks.” A “military solution” was always the desired outcome.

Embedded in Aceh

More specifically, certain features of the Indonesian operation in Aceh seem to have been designed directly from blueprints of the US attack on Iraq. The Jakarta Post, for example, reported that the Indonesian military was to use its own “embedded journalists” as an experiment for possible wider use in future missions. The newspaper reported that 60 journalists were to be given “training” by the Indonesian armed forces (TNI), after which they would receive a “license” to report on military operations. Moreover, the training was closed to non-Indonesian journalists.

Quoted in the Post, TNI spokesperson Major-General Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin talked about refusal to allow foreign journalists to cover military operations: “I don’t know whether there are any political considerations from the Foreign Ministry, but for me it is clear that we do not want any disturbance during the operation.”

Guarding against internal media “disturbances” also seems to have been a consideration, as overt repression of independent press reporting within Aceh has also been documented in the wake of the attack. In its 2003 survey, Reporters Without Borders labeled Asia as possibly the worst region of the world in terms of censorship and threats against journalists. Unfortunately true to form, then, was the recent statement by Major General Endang Suwarya, Indonesia’s military governor of Aceh, in which he explicitly outlined his intention to silence the “spokesmen of GAM.”

“I want all news published to uphold the spirit of nationalism,” he said. “Put the interests of the unitary state of Indonesia first. Don’t give statements from GAM any credence.”

The targets of Suwarya’s criticisms have included Aceh-based private TV stations and newspapers, such as Serambi Indonesia and Metro TV. The Jakarta Post recently quoted a Metro TV reporter describing an encounter with the TNI after the station aired footage that military central command considered to be “subversive.”

“The officer spent almost two hours laying into us and threatened to expel us from Aceh if we continued airing such footage,” the reporter explained.

Of course, preventing “disturbances” is one side of information control: presenting the desired “message” of military operations is the other.

In the case of Aceh, the desired message of the first day’s military maneuvers was well-interpreted by Sidney Jones of the International Crisis Group: “I can’t imagine any reason they’d be bringing this type of force to bear other than trying to generate a ‘shock and awe’ effect.”

The military seemed to concur: “We just wanted to give some shock therapy to GAM, to make them mentally and psychologically afraid of what the future holds,” explained the TNI’s Lieutenant Colonel Firdaus Kormano.

Embedded journalists were certainly on hand to record the beginning of the massive operation, and properly convey its message of “shock and awe.” On May 20, the front pages of many Indonesian and Asian newspapers carried action shots of hundreds of Indonesian paratroopers descending on Aceh, or landing on the coast line in boats.

If one lesson from Iraq employed in Aceh has been the use of overwhelming force to deliver “shock and awe” to the “enemy population,” another has been effective marshalling of journalists as prominent tools in the creation of this effect.

International links

The more direct military and political links between the governments that carried out the invasion of Iraq and the Indonesian state, a relationship made infamous during the genocide in East Timor, were also fairly evident during the attack on Aceh. Though the US, UK, and Australian governments have voiced their “concerns” at the possibility of human rights violations, the operation itself has not been openly criticized. Neighboring regional power Australia has even confirmed its commitment to the “territorial integrity of Indonesia,” affirming, albeit cautiously, the right of the Indonesian state to mount the operation.

Concrete Western links to Aceh include investment in the region, most prominently by Exxon-Mobil. Moreover, American OV-10F Bronco and British Hawk fighter jets, used by the Indonesian military in the invasion and occupation of East Timor, were in action again last week, flying missions into Aceh, with reports of airstrikes in areas of the province.

Nightmare scenario

The TNI has been wary of international scrutiny, and knows the importance of paying lip-service to human rights, having tried to present the attack as a clean, surgical operation. The Jakarta Post quoted General Sutarto telling his troops, “What you are doing here now is being broadcast all over the world… If there are soldiers who do violate [the order] and cause suffering to people in the field, then just shoot them in the head.”

Human Rights Watch, however, warned that the Indonesian attack “sets the stage for gross human rights violations” among the people of Aceh, particularly given the TNI’s history of abuses in the region. A recent statement from the Asian Students’ Association reported that “while armed skirmishes between the TNI and GAM are being reported daily, with casualties on both sides, there have been far more casualties in civil society.” Indeed, even from the first day of the attack, journalists such as Orlando de Guzman of the BBC reported on the aftermath of the TNI’s missions, describing the targeting of civilians, summary executions, and general climate of fear. Roundups of activists and NGO staff have also been reported. Another critical issue is that of internal refugees, or Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), of which Health Minister Achmad Sujudi estimates there will be 300,000. Camps have been set up by the Indonesian state around Aceh, North Sumatra and Medan, to hold around 100,000 refugees of the attack.

May 22, the fourth day of the attack, was also the day that the 11th defendant in the trial of Indonesian generals— for crimes against humanity in East Timor in 1999— was acquitted. Brigadier General Tono Suratman thanked the Jakarta court for a “fair trial,” and the Chief Judge proclaimed that the General’s “dignity and position… should be restored to him” after the decision. The timing of this verdict, coinciding with the assault on Aceh, gives a frightening cumulative picture of the continuing power and impunity enjoyed by the military in Indonesia, and the symbiotic relationship it still shares with other state and civil institutions.

Source: ZNET

US seeks regime change for Iran

Compiled by Willy Rosencrans

May 27 (AGR)— Iran appears to have been marked by the Bush administration and its supporters as the newest candidate for regime change. Echoing the charges which led to the invasion of Iraq, the US has repeatedly accused Iran of harboring the al-Qaida cell responsible for the May 12 bombings in Saudi Arabia that killed 34, and of operating an illicit nuclear weapons program. In response, the Pentagon is drawing up plans for a campaign to destabilize Iran’s democratically elected government.

Al-Qaida links in dispute

US officials allege that Saif al-Adel, al-Qaida’s security chief, and Saad bin Laden, son of Osama bin Laden, are in Iran leading an al-Qaida cell of about 10 people responsible for the Saudi Arabia bombings. The Iranian government has denied sheltering al-Qaida, and claims to have deported about 500 al-Qaida suspects in the past two years to other Islamic states. Iranian officials are also reported to have told UN officials that it had al-Qaida suspects in custody.

A senior administration official skeptical of the Pentagon’s arguments said the al-Qaida cell appears to be based in an isolated area of northeastern Iran, near the border with Afghanistan, apparently driven there from Iraq during the recent US-led invasion. He described the area as a drug-smuggling haven that is tolerated by key members of the Revolutionary Guards in return for a cut of the proceeds.

“I don’t think the elected government knows much about it… Why should you punish the rest of Iran,” he asked, just because the government cannot act in this area?

There is also a debate in intelligence circles about the reliability of the links between the Saudi bombings and al-Qaida in Iran. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld suggested last week that there was “no question” of such links, but others disagree.

“There is a dispute in the intelligence community about what the latest evidence represents,” an official said. He said that intercepts and so-called chatter about the bombings could be interpreted different ways, and that there was disagreement over “whether it represents a link to the Saudi bombings or to the Iranian regime.”

Weapons of mass destruction, again

Of greater concern to US officials is Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, particularly a facility said to be producing highly enriched uranium near the city of Natanz in the country’s central desert. The Natanz facility was not known to nuclear inspectors until last year.

Iran asserts that its nuclear programs are strictly for its energy needs.

The Bush administration is pressing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to issue a finding soon that the Natanz facility is, contrary to Tehran’s assertions, intended for the production of fuel for nuclear weapons, a violation of Iran’s obligations as a signatory to the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei is due to issue a report on Iran on June 10.

The Bush administration announced May 23 that it was imposing a two-year sanction on a Chinese firm, North China Industries, for selling technology to Iran that could be used to develop missiles capable of delivering chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The sanctions also will apply to an Iranian firm, the Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group.

Variety of ‘regime change’ tactics

Iran’s government is deeply divided between conservative clerics and the moderate reformers of President Mohammed Khatami, who won 77% of the vote in the 2001 elections. The official US position has been to advocate “regime change” by supporting Khatami - though George Tenet, the director of the CIA, has testified that even secular ‘moderates’ in Iran favor development of nuclear weapons.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced legislation to the Senate on May 19 that would mandate anti-government broadcasts in Iran and commit the US to backing an internationally monitored referendum allowing Iranians to change their government peacefully.

Although one senior official engaged in the debate said “the military option is never off the table,” others said no one was suggesting an invasion of Iran, although some officials think the United States should launch a limited air strike on the Natanz facility if Iran appears on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon.

The State Department, which had encouraged some form of engagement with the Iranians, appears inclined to accept a “regime change” policy, especially if Iran does not take any visible steps to deal with the suspected al-Qaida operatives. But State Department officials are concerned that the level of popular discontent in Iran is much lower than Pentagon officials believe, leading to the possibility that US efforts could ultimately discredit reformers in Iran.

The MEK: America’s favorite terrorists

The most controversial plan for bringing down the Iranian government calls for active support of Iranian opposition groups like the Iraq-based Mujaheddin-e Khalq, or People’s Mujaheddin (MEK), which has been labeled a terrorist organization by the State Department.

Diplomatic ties were severed between the US and Iran following Iran’s 1979 revolution, and relations only began to thaw after the US invasion of Afghanistan. Iran agreed to sit by during that invasion, and the US and Iran held a series of secret meetings in New York and Geneva over the next year and a half to discuss issues of mutual concern.

At one of the meetings, in early January, the US signaled that it would target the Iraq-based camps of the MEK as a gesture to Iran; the group has been added to the State Department’s list of terrorists.

But when the US occupation of Iraq was extended, the Pentagon arranged a cease-fire with the group, infuriating the Iranians. At the time, American officials said their aim was to disarm the MEK so that it could no longer operate. But some Pentagon officials, impressed by the military discipline and equipment of MEK troops, are envisioning them as a potential military force for use against Tehran, much like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

It was the MEK who, last summer, alleged that Iran was building a uranium enrichment plant near Natanz.

Sources: Associated Press, Guardian (UK), Knight Ridder, New York Times, Reuters, Seattle Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Washington Post

After Iraq, France faces sanctions

By Julio Godoy

Paris, France, May 21 (IPS)— France is facing US economic, military, and diplomatic sanctions as punishment for its opposition to the war in Iraq, according to official sources.

The US government has downgraded its participation at Salon de l’Aéronautique, the French air show next month. The US government has also excluded France, officially its NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) ally, from military exercises due later this year.

French military representatives have been barred from meetings in California on links between Galileo, the European satellite program, and the Global Positioning System, which is the US military scheme of satellite identification, and which also serves NATO.

These measures were decided late April as a part of a campaign to punish France for its opposition to the US war against Iraq, officials say.

“This anti-French campaign includes a disinformation campaign in which anonymous government officials in Washington spread lies about France,” an official told IPS.

French ambassador in Washington Jean-David Levitte denounced this disinformation campaign in a letter to US President George W. Bush. Levitte accused publications such as The New York Times, Newsweek, and The Washington Post of joining the campaign.

“I would like to invite your attention to the disturbing, unacceptable nature of this disinformation campaign, whose aim is to hurt France’s image and to deceive the public,” Levitte said.

The disinformation has included false claims that France gave former Iraqi officials diplomatic passports, and that it had recently delivered components for chemical weapons to Saddam’s regime.

The official campaign in the US is being backed by a new business war. US companies like Boeing and the oil giant Exxon have launched a drive to push French competitors out of the market.

Exxon and Boeing recently won contracts in Qatar that had been sought also by their European rivals Total and Airbus. The US universities Princeton and Cornell have won contracts to develop university campuses in Qatar capital Doha against French competition.

French President Jacques Chirac sought to counter US influence at a meeting with the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad Ben Khalifa Al-Thani in Paris earlier this month.

Chirac’s meeting with the Arab leader followed a visit to Qatar by French state secretary for small and middle-sized enterprises Renaud Dutreil in early May. Dutreil was accompanied by representatives of leading French enterprises operating in the Middle East.

Claude de Kémoularia, former French ambassador to Qatar, said in an interview with the newspaper Le Monde that “the governments of the region have sympathy for the French diplomatic position, but they recognize that France has no real power to put its position through.”

French misgivings rose after the recent tour of US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Middle East, Russia, and Germany. Powell did not visit Paris.

Powell’s visit to Germany particularly annoyed France. Germany too opposed the Anglo-US war, but Powell obtained partial support in Berlin last week for the US proposal to end United Nations (UN) sanctions against Iraq.

France wants sanctions suspended, not lifted, arguing that a UN evaluation of Iraqi disarmament is needed before a decision is taken. This could mean that UN inspectors certify that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction, the reason cited the US to justify the war on Iraq.

In an interview with Le Monde, French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin called the US proposal disrespectful of international rules, particularly the Geneva Convention. De Villepin also criticized US demands for impunity for the occupation forces in Iraq. This position is now inviting the further wrath of the US.

US looks away as new ally tortures Islamists
Uzbekistan president steps up repression of opponents

By Nick Paton Walsh

Namangan, Uzbekistan, May 26— Abdulkhalil was arrested in the fields of Uzbekistan’s Ferghana valley in August last year. The 28-year-old farmer was sentenced to 16 years in prison for “trying to overthrow the constitutional structures.”

Last week his father saw him for the first time since that day on a stretcher in a prison hospital. His head was battered and his tongue was so swollen that he could only say that he had “been kept in water for a long time”.

Abdulkhalil was a victim of Uzbekistan’s security service, the SNB. His detention and torture were part of a crackdown on Hizb-ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation), an Islamist group.

Independent human rights groups estimate that there are more than 600 politically motivated arrests a year in Uzbekistan, and 6,500 political prisoners, some tortured to death. According to a forensic report commissioned by the British embassy, in August two prisoners were even boiled to death.

The US condemned this repression for many years. But since Sept. 11 rewrote America’s strategic interests in central Asia, the government of President Islam Karimov has become Washington’s new best friend in the region.

The US is funding those it once condemned. Last year Washington gave Uzbekistan $500 million in aid. The police and intelligence services — which the state department’s website says use “torture as a routine investigation technique” received $79 million of this sum.

Karimov was President Bush’s guest in Washington in March last year. They signed a “declaration” which gave Uzbekistan security guarantees and promised to strengthen “the material and technical base of [their] law enforcement agencies.”

The cooperation grows. On May 2, NATO said Uzbekistan may be used as a base for the alliance’s peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan.

Since the fall of the Taliban, US support for the Karimov government has changed from one guided by short-term necessity into a long-term commitment based on America’s strategic requirements.

Critics argue that the US has overlooked human rights abuses to foster a police state whose borders give the Pentagon vantage points into Afghanistan and the other neighboring republics which are as rich in natural resources as they are in Islamist movements.

The geographical hub of the US-Uzbek alliance is 250 miles south of the capital, Tashkent. Outside the town of Karshi lies the Khanabad military base, the platform for America’s operations in Afghanistan.

The town of Khanabad has been closed for months by the Uzbek government. Locals say the restrictions are compensated for by the highly paid work the base brings.

Journalists are not allowed in to see its runway, logistical supply tents and troop lodgings, all set on roads named after New York avenues. One western source said: “[The Americans] expect to be here for over a decade.”

This will suit the Uzbek government, which welcomes America’s change in attitude as its own security forces continue to repress the population. Uzbeks need a permit to move between towns and an exit visa to leave the country. Attendance at a mosque seems to result in arrest.

In the city of Namangan, in the Ferghana valley, there are many accounts of the regime’s brutality. Two weeks ago, Ahatkhon was beaten by police and held down while members of the Uzbek security service stuffed “incriminating evidence” into his coat pocket. They called in two “witnesses” to watch them discover two leaflets supporting Hizb-ut-Tahrir. He was forced to inform on four friends, one of whom — an ex-boxer — is still in pain from his beating. Abdulkhalil and Ahatkhon prayed regularly. This seemed to have been enough to brand them as the Islamists the Karimov government fears.

The Ferghana valley has been a base for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), which the US and the UK say has links with al-Qaida. But the group is thought to have been crippled by the operations in Afghanistan. Analysts dismiss US claims that the IMU is targeting American military assets in the neighboring republic of Kyrgyzstan.

The fight against the IMU has been used to justify the repression of Islamists. But the Islamic order advocated by Hizb-ut-Tahrir fills a void left by devastating poverty and state brutality.

Craig Murray, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan, said: “The intense repression here combined with the inequality of wealth and absence of reform will create the Islamic fundamentalism that the regime is trying to quash.”

Another senior western official said: “People have less freedom here than under Brezhnev. The irony is that the US Republican party is supporting the remnants of Brezhnevism as part of their fight against Islamic extremism.”

The US is also funding some human rights groups in Uzbekistan. Last year it gave $26 million towards democracy programs. A state department spokesman said America’s policy was “reform through engagement” and that Uzbekistan had “taken some positive steps,” including “registering a human rights group and a new newspaper.”

Matilda Bogner of Human Rights Watch’s office in Tashkent said: “I would deny there has been any real progress.

“The steps taken are basically window dressing used to get the military funding through the US Congress’s ethical laws. Nothing has changed on the ground.”

Hakimjon Noredinov, 68, agreed. He became a human rights activist after a morgue attendant brought him his eldest son, Nozemjon. He had been left for dead by the security service but was still alive despite having his skull fractured. Nozemjon is now 33, but screamed all night since they split his skull open. He is now in an asylum, Noredinov said. “People’s lives here are no better for US involvement,” he said.

“Because of the US help, Karimov is getting richer and stronger.”

Source: Guardian (UK)

Israeli ‘acceptance’ of ‘roadmap’
has web of strings attached

Compiled by Seán Marquis

May 27— A divided Israeli cabinet reluctantly bowed to White House pressure on Sunday and voted to accept the US-led “road map” to an independent Palestinian state within three years. But Ariel Sharon’s government attached opt-out clauses and demands which reinforced Palestinian fears that Israel was seeking to buy time not peace.

The Cabinet voted 12-7, with four abstentions, even though they were asked only to approve “steps required by the road map” rather than endorsing the document itself or the final goal of a Palestinian state.

Three of those opposing the scheme were members of Sharon’s own party, including Uzi Landau, who called the plan “a recipe for terror” and Washington’s reassurances a “sugar-coated cyanide pill.”

The vote was held under US pressure, after the White House and Israel hammered out a diplomatic formula last week in which Washington agreed to take account of Israeli objections to the road map,

Former leftist MK (Minister of Knesset) and journalist-peace activist Uri Avneri said, “this is a historic decision. I only fear that Ariel Sharon will do everything he can to avoid carrying it out.”

An opinion poll published Monday in the Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, showed that 56 percent of Israelis responding believed that the nation should agree to the road map, versus 34 percent who said the plan should be rejected.

Perhaps more daunting for settlers and their supporters on the right, 66 percent of respondents said they believed Sharon capable of evacuating settlements and withdrawing from Israeli-held territory under the provisions of the road map.

“Sharon doesn’t want to comply with the road map,” said the head of the Palestinian negotiating team, Yasser Abed Rabbo. “This is the ground he has to give to keep the Americans happy, and he won’t go any further than the White House forces him to.

“But I believe it’s the American policy that’s in real crisis now... It’s not a Palestinian plan, it’s their plan. If they show hesitation in dealing with the Israelis and don’t show commitment, this will lead us nowhere.

“Sharon is counting on support from certain persons inside the administration and Congress, and counting on [US president George W.] Bush to lose interest as the [US] election nears.”

In recent weeks, Sharon has further undermined Israel’s previous commitments to contain the expansion of settlements, and said he would like to extend Israeli sovereignty to incorporate large settlements.

He also told his cabinet he wanted to extend the highly controversial “security fence” now under construction, so that it would in effect cage the bulk of the Palestinian population on the West Bank.

He has presented a vision of a Palestinian state as an emasculated dependency, without an army or control over its borders or airspace.

Sharon has said Israel’s 14 objections are a “red line” that cannot be crossed, and the cabinet vote yesterday included a condition that the changes demanded “will be implemented in full during the implementation phase of the road map.”

For example, the cabinet ruled out any return of Palestinian refugees or their descendants – numbering in the hundreds of thousands - to Israel, even though the issue is technically supposed to be negotiated as part of the road map.

“The government further clarifies that, both during and subsequent to the political process, the resolution of the issue of the refugees will not include their entry into or settlement within the state of Israel,” the cabinet said.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, who voted for the road map in the Sunday session in deference to his Likud party chief Sharon, said on Army Radio Monday: “We did not vote on an international agreement. In fact, this is not a legal document, there is no sort of commitment here, rather this is a declaration of diplomatic intentions.”

Amr, the Palestinian information minister, said his side had received assurances from the US that there would be no changes to the outline plan for peace. “We have accurate assurances that there will be no amendments. If the Israelis try to use that as an excuse to back out, we must see how the Americans will react.”

The Dubai-based Gulf News in a May 26 editorial comment said that US refusal to reevaluate its tolerance of Israeli violence is at the heart of continuing violence in the Middle East.

“Bush should not make the mistake that his actions in Iraq let him off the hook in Palestine. The roadmap does offer a chance for peace but only if it is given teeth,” the paper said.

Bush is set to travel to Jordan for a three way summit next week, the Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, said.

“In Jordan, it looks like now, President Bush will meet with prime minister Sharon, Prime Minister [Mahmoud] Abbas, and maybe a few others,” Shalom said.

Sources: Associated Press, Guardian (UK), Ha’aretz, United Arab Emirates news agency (WAM)

BP pipeline will displace thousands,
says Amnesty

London, England, May 20 (IPS)— The terms of laying a new oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean violate the human rights of people living along the line, Amnesty International warned May 20.

Two new pipelines, one for oil and one for gas, have been planned from Baku in Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan in Turkey after passing through Tbilisi in Georgia. A consortium led by British Petroleum (BP) is planning to build the pipelines.

The proposed 1,750-kilometer Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is likely to be among the world’s longest. It will have a capacity to supply some one million barrels of oil per day.

Construction is due to begin within a few weeks and is expected to last two years. The pipeline project is expected to cost about $5 billion, and have a lifespan of 40 to 60 years.

In its report “Human Rights on the Line,” Amnesty has objected to the legal agreements covering construction of the pipeline within the Turkish section on the ground that the agreements will lead to a denial of human rights to people living along the pipeline.

Amnesty says it has similar concerns for people in Georgia and Azerbaijan. “But we have not had the resources to investigate further,” Chris Marsden, chair of the Amnesty International UK Business Group, told media representatives May 20.

Amnesty has particular concerns over environmental degradation, loss of livelihood to local people, and loss of grazing land, Andrea Stemberg from Amnesty told media representatives.

“BP says about 30,000 people will be affected in Turkey,” she said. “The local population will be at the mercy of the oil consortium. Many of the local people do not even speak Turkish as the first language, and they have no way of going to a court or anywhere else to seek redress.”

BP is making offers to local people that look good on paper, she said. “But basically BP is replacing legal rights with corporate voluntary principles.”

Amnesty also expressed concern about inadequate enforcement of health and safety legislation to protect workers and local people, serious risk to human rights of any individuals who protest against the pipeline, and of reduced access to water for local people, in an area of water shortage.

The pipeline marks an unusual human rights issue for Amnesty to take up. “It is not classic human rights violation, but violation through a commercial deal,” Sheldon Leader, professor of law at Essex University and legal adviser to Amnesty International, said at the press conference.

“Our concern is over the agreements between the governments of each of these three countries and the companies building the pipeline,” Leader said. “Those agreements made do not operate within Turkish law, and disputes can only be settled by arbitration in Geneva. But that is a meaningless remedy. Local people are never going to be able to go to Geneva, and so what we need are local remedies.”

The agreement provides that local concerns over the international or human rights obligations of those building the pipeline “will not be able to disturb what they call the ‘economic equilibrium’ of the project,” Leader said. If the Turkish government itself wants to raise such concerns, it would have to pay huge compensation to the operators of the pipeline if its moves interfere with the profitability of the project, Leader said.

The Turkish government would have the right to the intervene only if there is imminent danger to safety of people or the environment, Leader said. But dangers caused to people and to the environment through the pipeline are more likely to build up gradually, and local authorities will be helpless in the face of such dangers, he said.

“We are asking for rights to be given to the Turkish government to be able to act in public interest, and to regulate the project,” he said. “We want the creation of a representative supervisory body with teeth, with the right to stop the project if standards are not met.”

A BP official told media representatives later that the company is concerned about the kind of issues raised by Amnesty, and that no such project has built in so many provisions for the protection of human rights.

“Think of the benefits to Azerbaijan,” he said. “They are looking at revenues of $21 billion from the pipeline, employment to 10,000 people during construction of the pipeline, and permanent employment to 800 people afterwards.”

Each of the 450 communities that would be affected along the site of the pipeline had been consulted, he said. The unprecedented measures for protection of local people have included also third party observers for compensation for land acquisition. “The pipeline will contribute to human rights; it will not be a deterrent,” he said.

Marsden said that the agreement signed between the Turkish government and the consortium creates a “rights-free corridor” for the pipeline. Turkey signed the agreement because of its anxiety to secure inward investment, the Amnesty report says.

Specter of lawsuits haunts Berlusconi

Rome, Italy, May 21 (IPS)— Political and personal variables are intertwined in the clash between Italy’s justice authorities and prime minister and business magnate Silvio Berlusconi, who could lose his freedom if he loses power, as is the case of some former Latin American heads of state.

The Berlusconi government accuses judges and prosecutors of acting with political motives, while the opposition alleges that the prime minister and his government — which holds an absolute majority in parliament — use power to ensure impunity.

The situation has points in common with the cases of at least two Latin American countries.

In Nicaragua, former president Arnoldo Alemán (1997-2002) had to be stripped of Parliamentary immunity before he could be tried on charges of money laundering, corruption, illicit enrichment, and misappropriation of public funds. The legal proceedings are still underway.

In Argentina, the Supreme Court is still dominated by judges named by former president Carlos Menem (1989-1999), and his critics say that it is the only thing that has saved him from guilty verdicts for his alleged involvement in corruption, contraband, money laundering, and arms and drugs trafficking during his government.

Menem spent five months under house arrest after being indicted on charges of “illicit association.”

This year he made another bid for the presidency, but pulled out of the run-off election this month against Néstor Kirchner, whom opinion polls gave a vast lead over Menem. Local political experts say that the former president’s political decline could ultimately pave the way to prison.

The conflictive relationship between the Italian prime minister and the judiciary has a long history and involves more than 50 lawsuits. The most critical moment to date has been the recent sentencing of Berlusconi’s former attorney Cesare Previti to 11 years in prison for bribing judges.

Previti served as Berlusconi’s lawyer before the latter entered the political sphere, was Defense Minister during Berlusconi’s first term in office (six months in 1994), and is now a legislative deputy for the governing conservative party Forza Italia.

The attorney was found guilty Apr. 29 by a court in the northern city of Milan, and awaits the results of two other similar proceedings. In all cases he was accused of bribing judges in order to benefit the economic activities of Berlusconi.

The Milan court ruled that deputy Previti “corrupted” the judges in Rome in 1991 in order to facilitate Berlusconi’s acquisition of the Mondadori publishing house, Italy’s largest.

The prime minister himself was accused in that lawsuit, but the maximum appeals court issued a decision that his alleged crimes had been annulled by the statute of limitations.

The Mondadori case dragged on for years, largely due to legal maneuverings by the defendants.

“I don’t know how many people would have been able to endure five years in those conditions,” commented Ilda Bocassini, a prosecuting attorney in the case.

“I don’t want to mention — for love of the country — those who opted to hide,” she added, in clear allusion to Berlusconi.

The prime minister expressed his “solidarity” with Previti, and charged that his former minister was the victim of “political- judicial persecution”. But he did not stop there — he went on to attack Italy’s entire judiciary branch.

The Previti trial “was not to carry out justice, but rather to strike at someone who received the electorate’s mandate to govern the country,” Berlusconi maintained in a letter to Il Foglio newspaper, which is owned by his wife.

“We must heighten the tone of our democracy” and block this type of legal action “in order to prevent them from stealing the value of our sovereignty,” wrote the prime minister.

He charges that the Italian judicial branch is “criminal” because it seeks to “overthrow the results of the popular vote.”

During his first term in government, Berlusconi received a legal notice that he would be under investigation by judicial authorities. That was on Jan. 22, 1994, just as he was taking part in an international meeting on crime convened by the United Nations in the southern Italian city of Naples.

Since then, the politician and business magnate has maintained that the judges investigating him are leftist “red togas” and are acting on political motives.

After his second electoral victory in 2001, Berlusconi once again lashed out at the judges in Milan, and at Bocassini in particular, dubbing her “Ilda the Red.”

The prime minister criticized them for pursuing the Mondadori case and the two other lawsuits, in which Previti is charged with the execution of the crime and the prime minister of masterminding it.

In mid-2001, the governing party passed two laws that the opposition saw as tools for blocking the trials in Milan: one on requests for legal collaboration between Italy and Switzerland, the other decriminalizing the falsification of business audits.

Then, during the northern hemisphere summer of 2002, another law was passed, the so-called “legitimate suspicion act,” which allows one to challenge the carrying out of a trial and move the case to another court if it is found that “possibilities of bias” exist.

The opposition parties and civil society groups mobilized against the law, “sized to fit Berlusconi,” commented film director Nanni Moretti, one of the principal organizers of the protests.

Previti sought protection under the “legitimate suspicion act” as soon as it entered into force, but the appeals court did not accept his petition.

On another front, the governing party is working to restore full immunity to parliamentarians and other officials in office. Such protections were annulled in the early 1990s in the context of a wave of corruption scandals uncovered by Milan prosecutors as they launched “Operation Clean Hands.”

Another trial expected to wrap up in the second half of this year is the Previti and Berlusconi case, in which they are accused of bribing judges in Rome in the 1980s to win the privatization contract of the government-run SME food company.

Also during this year’s second semester, Italy will hold the six-month rotating presidency of the European Union.

The influential British weekly magazine, The Economist, said in an editorial last week that Berlusconi should “step down from his public post and defend himself in court... If and when he has fully cleared his name, Europeans may feel easier about having him speak for Europe.”

Berlusconi reportedly fears a repeat of the embarrassing episode of being notified at the 1994 UN conference on crime that he was under investigation.